[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH v2] x86: p2m-pod: address violation of MISRA C Rule 2.1
On 2024-07-01 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote: On 28.06.2024 08:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:The label 'out_unmap' is only reachable after ASSERT_UNREACHABLE, so the code below is only executed upon erroneously reaching that program point and calling domain_crash, thus resulting in thefor loop after 'out_unmap' to become unreachable in some configurations.First: As you have come to be used to, briefly stating the rule itself (rather than just its number, requiring people like me - who have not memorized all the rule numbers - to go look up what rule this is) would be nice. Sure This being about unreachable code, why are the domain_crash() not the crucial points of "unreachability"? And even if they weren't there, why wouldn't it be the goto or ...--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c @@ -1040,6 +1040,7 @@ out_unmap: * Something went wrong, probably crashing the domain. Unmap * everything and return. */ + /* SAF-8-safe Rule 2.1: defensive programming */ for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ ) if ( map[i] ) unmap_domain_page(map[i]);... the label (just out of context) where the comment needs to go? Because of the way this rule's configuration work, deviations are placed on the construct that ends up being the target of the unreachability, rather than (one of) the causes of such unreachability. Putting the comment on the label works for ECLAIR by offsetting its target statement, but not for other tools afaik. -- Nicola Vetrini, BSc Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |